Analysis of the integrated defense acquisition, technology, and logistics life cycle management framework for human systems integration documentation

Transcription

1 Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection Analysis of the integrated defense acquisition, technology, and logistics life cycle management framework for human systems integration documentation McLaughlin, Pamela F. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School

2 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS ANALYSIS OF THE INTEGRATED DEFENSE ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR HUMAN SYSTEMS INTEGRATION DOCUMENTATION by Jeanine A. Lang Pamela F. McLaughlin December 2009 Thesis Advisor: Second Reader: Lawrence G. Shattuck Nita Lewis Miller Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

4 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA , and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project ( ) Washington DC AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE December TITLE AND SUBTITLE Analysis of the Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Life Cycle Management Framework for Human Systems Integration 6. AUTHOR(S) Jeanine A. Lang and Pamela F. McLaughlin 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) N/A 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Master s Thesis 5. FUNDING NUMBERS 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE A The objective of this thesis is to conduct a thorough analysis of the documentation and policy that currently exists within the Department of Defense (DoD) framework. There are numerous gaps within this documentation pertaining to Human Systems Integration (HSI) in the Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (IDAT&L) Life Cycle. The U.S. Navy currently implements HSI at different stages throughout the Life Cycle, but it lacks continuity throughout the entire process. A detailed analysis of the IDAT&L framework can potentially aid in redefining how the Navy should address HSI, by identifying areas where HSI policies and guidelines should exist, but currently do not (i.e., gaps), and then proposing ways to close those gaps and streamline the HSI process as a whole throughout the Navy. This thesis suggests a potential, strengthened framework for HSI in the Navy, based on the information and findings gathered from not only the current framework, but also current Navy policies. The outcome of this thesis is to improve the entire HSI process throughout the Navy and help ensure that HSI is used effectively throughout the acquisition process. 14. SUBJECT TERMS Human Systems Integration, Acquisition, Manpower, Training, Personnel, Human Factors Engineering, Safety Health Hazards, Human Survivability, Policy 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT Unclassified 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE Unclassified 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT Unclassified 15. NUMBER OF PAGES PRICE CODE 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT NSN Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std UU i

5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii

6 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited ANALYSIS OF THE INTEGRATED DEFENSE ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR HUMAN SYSTEMS INTEGRATION DOCUMENTATION Jeanine A. Lang Lieutenant, United States Navy B.S., United States Naval Academy, 2005 Pamela F. McLaughlin Lieutenant Junior Grade, United States Navy B.S., United States Naval Academy, 2006 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN OPERATIONS RESEARCH from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL December 2009 Authors: Jeanine A. Lang Pamela F. McLaughlin Approved by: Lawrence G. Shattuck Thesis Advisor Nita Lewis Miller Second Reader Robert F. Dell Chairman, Department of Operations Research iii

7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv

8 ABSTRACT The objective of this thesis is to conduct a thorough analysis of the documentation and policy that currently exists within the Department of Defense (DoD) framework. There are numerous gaps within this documentation pertaining to Human Systems Integration (HSI) in the Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (IDAT&L) Life Cycle. The U.S. Navy currently implements HSI at different stages throughout the Life Cycle, but it lacks continuity throughout the entire process. A detailed analysis of the IDAT&L framework can potentially aid in redefining how the Navy should address HSI, by identifying areas where HSI policies and guidelines should exist, but currently do not (i.e., gaps), and then proposing ways to close those gaps and streamline the HSI process as a whole throughout the Navy. This thesis suggests a potential, strengthened framework for HSI in the Navy, based on the information and findings gathered from not only the current framework, but also current Navy policies. The outcome of this thesis is to improve the entire HSI process throughout the Navy and help ensure that HSI is used effectively throughout the acquisition process. v

9 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION...1 A. PURPOSE...1 B. BACKGROUND...1 C. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES...6 D. RESEARCH QUESTIONS...6 E. METHODOLOGY...6 F. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS...7 G. ORGANIZATION...8 II. III. IV. APPROACH...9 A. DESIGN...9 B. DESCRIPTION OF IDEAL MODEL...9 C. HYPOTHESIS...10 D. PROCEDURE...10 IDEAL MODEL...11 A. BACKGROUND ON THE IDEAL MODEL...11 B. PURPOSE...12 C. STRUCTURE OF MODEL...12 D. FUTURE OF MODEL...35 E. SUMMARY...35 GAP ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...37 A. ANALYSIS...37 B. PRIORITY LEVEL OF DOCUMENTS...37 C. MODEL BREAKDOWN...38 D. DOCUMENT GAPS AT LEVEL DoDD DoDI CJCSI F RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEVEL 1 DOCUMENTS...54 E. DOCUMENT GAPS AT LEVEL OPNAVINST SECNAVINST D RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEVEL 2 DOCUMENTS...67 F. DOCUMENT GAPS AT LEVEL Virtual SYSCOM Human Systems Integration Guide, Volumes 1 and NAVSEA HSE Best Practices Guide Recommendations for Level 3 Documents...80 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...85 A. OVERVIEW...85 B. CONCLUSIONS...85 vii

11 C. AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH...86 APPENDIX THE IDEAL MODEL...89 LIST OF REFERENCES...93 INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST...95 viii

12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Ideal Model...13 Figure 2. The Ideal Model (Policy Side)...39 Figure 3. The Ideal Model (Operational Side through TD)...40 Figure 4. The Ideal Model (Operational Side through OS)...41 Figure 5. Gaps Identified in DoDD (Policy Side)...43 Figure 6. Gaps Identified in DoDD (Operational Side through TD)...44 Figure 7. Gaps Identified in DoDD (Operational Side through OS)...45 Figure 8. Gaps Identified in DoDI (Policy Side)...47 Figure 9. Gaps Identified in DoDI (Operational Side through TD)...48 Figure 10. Gaps Identified in DoDI (Operational Side through OS)...49 Figure 11. Gaps Identified in CJCSI F (Policy Side)...51 Figure 12. Gaps Identified in CJCSI F (Operational Side through TD)...52 Figure 13. Gaps Identified in CJCSI F (Operational Side through OS)...53 Figure 14. Gaps Identified in OPNAVINST (Policy Side)...59 Figure 15. Gaps Identified in OPNAVINST (Operational Side through TD)...60 Figure 16. Gaps Identified in OPNAVINST (Operational Side through OS)...61 Figure 17. Gaps Identified in SECNAVINST D (Policy Side)...64 Figure 18. Gaps Identified in SECNAVINST D (Operational Side through TD)...65 Figure 19. Gaps Identified in SECNAVINST D (Operational Side through TD)...66 Figure 20. The Ideal Model (Policy Side)...68 Figure 21. Gaps Identified in VS HSI Guide Vols. I and II (Policy Side)...72 Figure 22. Gaps Identified in VS HSI Guide Vols. I and II (Operational Side through TD)...73 Figure 23. Gaps Identified in VS HSI Guide Vols. I and II (Operational Side through OS)...74 Figure 24. Gaps Identified in NAVSEA HSE Best Practices Guide (Policy Side)...77 Figure 25. Gaps Identified in NAVSEA HSE Best Practices Guide (Operational Side through TD)...78 Figure 26. Gaps Identified in NAVSEA HSE Best Practices Guide (Operational Side through OS)...79 Figure 27. The Ideal Model (Policy Side)...89 Figure 28. The Ideal Model (Operation Side through TD)...90 Figure 29. The Ideal Model (Operational Side through OS)...91 ix

13 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK x

14 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Service HSI domains (After: Miller & Shattuck, 2006)...4 xi

15 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK xii

16 LIST OF SYMBOLS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS AoA AT&L CDD CDR CJCS CJCSI COI CPD CPI CTP DAG DAU DoD DoDD DoDI DoN DOTMLPF DT&E EMD FNA GAO HARDMAN HARPS HCI HSI HSE ICD IA IDAT&L Analysis of Alternatives Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Capabilities Development Document Critical Design Review Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction Critical Operational Issues Capabilities Production Document Critical Program Information Critical Technical Parameters Defense Acquisition Guide Defense Acquisition University Department of Defense Department of Defense Directive Department of Defense Instruction Department of Navy Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel and Facilities Developmental Test and Evaluation Engineering and Manufacturing Development Functional Needs Analysis General Accounting Office Hardware Procurement and Military Manpower Human Analysis and Requirements Planning System Human Computer Interface Human Systems Integration Human Systems Engineering Initial Capabilities Document Integrated Architecture Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology & Logistics xiii

17 ISP JCIDS KPP LFT&E MDA MPT MPTS MSA MANPRINT NASA NAVAIR NAVSEA OPNAV OPNAVINST OS OT&E PD PDR PESHE PM RFP SECNAV SECNAVINST SOW SPAWAR SYSCOM(s) TD T&E USN VSYSCOM Information Support Plan Joint Capabilities Integration Development Systems Key Performance Parameters Live Fire Test and Evaluation Milestone Decision Authority Manpower, Personnel and Training Manpower, Personnel, Training and Safety Materiel Solutions Analysis Military and Manpower Integration National Aeronautics and Space Administration Naval Air Systems Command Naval Sea Systems Command Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction Operations and Support Operational Test and Evaluation Production and Deployment Preliminary Design Review Programmatic Environment, Safety and Health Evaluation Program Manager Request for Proposal United States Secretary of the Navy United States Secretary of the Navy Instruction Statement of Work Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command U.S. Navy Systems Command(s) Technology Development or Technology Development Test and Evaluation United States Navy Virtual Systems Command xiv

18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objective of this thesis is to conduct a thorough analysis of the documentation and policy that currently exists within the Department of Defense (DoD) framework. There are numerous gaps within this documentation pertaining to Human Systems Integration (HSI) in the Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (IDAT&L) Life Cycle. The U.S. Navy currently implements HSI at different stages throughout the Life Cycle, but it lacks continuity throughout the entire process. A detailed analysis of the IDAT&L framework can potentially aid in redefining how the Navy should address HSI, identifying areas where HSI policies and guidelines should exist, but currently do not (i.e., gaps), and then proposing ways to close those gaps and streamline the HSI process as a whole throughout the Navy. The acquisition process contains a thorough structure from the moment a need for the military is identified to the moment that the need is retired and disposed. This process guides the acquisition community through the important steps to obtain a system that will meet the standards that are required. Within each phase of the Life Cycle, the Program Manager (PM) is required to meet these standards. Every member of the acquisition team, from the user to the engineer, knows what is required during this process of the Life Cycle. HSI is a growing field that requires complete immersion into the acquisition process. As of yet, it has not been fully integrated throughout all of the phases. In order to obtain and develop the best system for the military, the acquisition community must gain the knowledge of the system and the user. In order to develop the system with the user in mind, the acquisition cycle must integrate HSI throughout the entire process. The integration of these HSI standards will allow the PM and his/her team to acquire the best system to meet the needs of the military. The development of a model that would serve as our baseline allowed us to do a gap analysis on the policies and documentation within the U.S. Navy s acquisition process. The gap analysis provided us with the gaps between the HSI standards (our model) and what the policies and documents say is required. The recommendations are xv

19 provided to gain knowledge on how the process could be changed in order to obtain the best system for the military. This model was developed with the U.S. Navy as the main priority, but may also be useful for the other services. Based on the comparative analysis of the current HSI policies and procedures utilized by the Navy, and the gaps identified in the guidelines and policies reviewed, this thesis makes recommendations for a joint framework for a new comprehensive policy throughout the IDAT&L Life Cycle Management Process. These recommendations intend to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process and the further development of HSI. xvi

20 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Dr. Lawrence G. Shattuck, thesis advisor, and Dr. Nita Lewis Miller, second reader, for their continued time and support throughout this thesis research effort. Their professional guidance and subject matter expertise made it possible for us to enjoy this experience and gain significant knowledge about this field. We would also like to thank Mr. Jeffrey Thomas for his great insight and the help that he provided us throughout this process. Without his encouragement, our success would not have been possible. xvii

21 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK xviii

22 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE The objective of this thesis is to analyze the documentation and policy that currently exists within the Department of Defense (DoD) framework dealing with the Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (IDAT&L) Life Cycle focusing specifically on how the United States Navy addresses Human Systems Integration (HSI). Currently, the Navy implements HSI at different stages throughout the Life Cycle. An analysis of the IDAT&L framework can potentially aid in understanding how the Navy should address HSI, identifying areas where HSI policies and guidelines should exist, but do not (i.e., gaps), and then proposing ways to close those gaps. This thesis is a potential strengthened framework for the Navy, based on the information and knowledge gathered from not only the current framework, but also from current Navy policies. The objective of this thesis is to improve the entire HSI process. B. BACKGROUND HSI and the Defense acquisition process are inextricably linked. In order to understand how the Defense Acquisition System works, it is critical to understand its structure and direction. The foundation of the acquisition process lies at the roots of HSI. Without a solid footing in one, the other cannot be successful. The Defense Acquisition System, by definition, is a... management process by which the Department of Defense acquires quality products in a timely manner, at a fair and responsible price, and which satisfies user needs with measureable improvements to mission capability and operational support. The Defense Acquisition System exists to manage the nation s investments in technologies, programs, and product support in such a way so as to achieve the National Security Strategy to support not only today s armed forces, but also the next force and future forces beyond that. (Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Acquisition Guide, 2008, p. 6) 1

23 HSI is thought to be a process of incorporating characteristics, capabilities, and limitations of humans within the IDAT&L decision-making process. However, no set definition has been agreed on by HSI practioners. A leading pioneer in the field of HSI, Harold R. Booher, defines HSI in his book, Handbook of Human Systems Integration (2003), as:... a comprehensive management and technical program that focuses on the integration of human considerations into the systems acquisition process (p. 5). The DoD Handbook on Human Engineering Process and Procedures, MIL-HDBK-46855A, defines HSI as: A comprehensive management and technical strategy to ensure that human performance, the burden design imposes on manpower, personnel, and training (MPT), and safety and health aspects are considered throughout system design and development. HSI assists with the total system approach by focusing attention on the human part of the total system equation and by ensuring that human-related considerations are integrated into the system acquisition process. (MIL-HDBK-46855A, Section 5.1.2, 1999, p. 19) The Naval Postgraduate School defines HSI as: HSI acknowledges that the human is a critical component of any complex system. It is an interdisciplinary approach that makes explicit the underlining tradeoffs across the HSI domains, facilitating optimization of total system performance. (Miller & Shattuck, 2006, p. 4) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) defines HSI on their NASA Ames HSI Webpage as:... an umbrella term for several areas of human factors research that include human performance, technology design, and human-computer interaction. The study of Human Systems Integration at NASA Ames Research Center focuses on the need for safe, efficient and cost-effective operations, maintenance and training, both in space, in flight and on the ground. (NASA Ames HSI Website, 2009) As can be seen from the definitions above, HSI practioners do not agree on a formal definition of HSI. Given the interdisciplinary nature of this field, arriving on a set definition is imperative as a first step in seeing a successful joint IDAT&L framework. Ideally, all DoD components should understand and agree on the definition of the field in which they are required to work. 2

24 Based on the reality that HSI practioners and DoD-related agencies do not agree on a common definition, it is not surprising that they do not agree on common domains within HSI. The seven domains of HSI are listed in MIL-HDBK-46855A, the DoD Handbook on Human Engineering Process and Procedures: Human Factors Engineering, Manpower, Personnel, Training, Safety, Health Hazards, and Human Survivability (1999). Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) , which was revised in 2008,... establishes a simplified and flexible management framework for translating mission needs and technology opportunities, based on approved mission needs and requirements, into stable, affordable, and well managed acquisition programs that include weapon systems and automated information systems. (DoDI , 2008, p. 1) This instruction applies to all services within the DoD and defines the domains of HSI as: Manpower, Personnel, Training, Human Factors Engineering, Survivability, Habitability, Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (DoDI , 2008). Although these domains are defined in the above document, each service has redefined domains based on their mission requirements. Table 1 shows disparities among the services in the HSI domains. Like a common definition, agreeing on domains is essential to a successful joint acquisition strategy. 3

25 Table 1. Service HSI domains (After: Miller & Shattuck, 2006) NAVY ARMY AIR FORCE MARINE CORPS NASA Manpower Manpower Manpower Manpower Manpower Personnel Personnel Personnel Personnel Personnel Training Training Training Training Training Human Factors Engineering Human Factors Engineering Human Factors Engineering 4 Human Factors Engineering Human Factors/ Human Factors Engineering Human Soldier Human Human Survivability Survivability Survivability Survivability Survivability System Safety System Safety System Safety System Safety System Safety, Environmental Safety, Occupational Safety Health Hazards Health Hazards Occupational Health Hazards Health Hazards Health, Medical Hazards Habitability Habitability Habitability Habitability Environment HSI sprang from problems in implementing the IDAT&L Life Cycle Management Framework. Although the field of human factors has existed for decades, the interdisciplinary field of HSI began to emerge after a 1981 General Accounting Office (GAO) report attributed 50% of all military equipment failures to human error (GAO, 1981). The report confirmed that the effectiveness of U.S. forces could be significantly increased through improved weapon system design. Further, it stressed the immediate need for the integration of manpower, personnel, and training (MPT) considerations into the acquisition process. (Belcher, 1995, p. 3) The recognition of this deficiency led to the birth of two DoD programs: Hardware Procurement and Military Manpower (HARDMAN) for the Navy and Military and Manpower Integration (MANPRINT) in the Army. These programs were designed to improve human performance and equipment reliability, while helping to weed out system design flaws. In December 1988, the DoD published Directive , entitled Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Safety (MPTS) in the Defense Acquisition Process. This document helped establish common MPTS criteria among all services, but was

26 superseded soon after by DoDI , Defense Acquisition Management Policies and Procedures, in February This new document mandated that human considerations shall be effectively integrated into the design effort for defense systems to improve total system performance and reduce ownership costs (DoD, 2003, p. 43). Although the 2003 version of DoDI outlined the requirement for HSI, the method of implementation was left to each individual service. Because each service owns HSI, the term Human Systems Integration gets thrown around quite often; however, few individuals know how it works and how it should be implemented. With that being said, each service has created a unique method for implementing it within the confines of that service, but there is still little agreement on what HSI is and how each service should implement it in the Acquisition Framework. In 2008, the 2003 version of DoDI was replaced with DoDI The new 2008 version is similar to the 2003 version, requiring the PM to optimize total system performance and minimize the Life Cycle cost of ownership through a total system approach to acquisition management. Government contractors know that HSI is a contractual requirement that must be completed during the design and development phases of the acquisition process (Integrated Framework chart, 2005). Usually, HSI is initially addressed as a program plan in the Joint Capabilities Integration Development System (JCIDS) process. However, its importance extends beyond Milestone B. After Milestone B, HSI builds the foundation of the materiel solution required to be in the program plan. If a materiel solution is not identified in JCIDS, the Life Cycle ends and HSI is not implemented throughout the remainder of the doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel and facilities (DOTMLPF). Hence, DoDI does not address the entire Life Cycle in the document; HSI is also not addressed, leaving little or no consideration to the total Life Cycle cost of the program. Current service policy addressing HSI is limited and differs among the services. The vague wording of many of these documents indicates that HSI needs to be done; however, it does not provide criteria or guidelines for how to conduct HSI throughout the Life Cycle. This lack of information is why it is important that a comprehensive joint acquisition policy, which addresses HSI throughout the Life Cycle, be created and 5

27 implemented. This thesis makes recommendations for a joint framework for a new comprehensive policy throughout the IDAT&L Life Cycle Management Process. C. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The objectives of this thesis are to: Conduct a comparative analysis of current HSI policies and procedures utilized by the Navy. Identify the significant gaps in guidelines and policies in service documentation and implementation. Propose strengthened policy, based on the information and knowledge gathered from the current framework and gaps, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process. D. RESEARCH QUESTIONS This thesis poses the question: What modifications can be made within the Navy, and the acquisition process as a whole, to better address and improve the application of HSI in the Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) framework? In addressing the question above, the following questions were also considered: What are the objectives of DoDD with respect to HSI requirements for the U.S. Navy? What policies, procedures, and infrastructures currently exist within the U.S. Navy to carry out HSI? What gaps exist between the current policies, procedures, and infrastructure? If gaps do exist, how can these gaps be closed? E. METHODOLOGY This thesis analyzes how the U.S. Navy integrates human considerations and HSI into the IDAT&L Framework. Generalizations regarding the entire HSI program for the U.S. Navy are based on the details of the analysis of instruction and policy that have been 6

28 published. This thesis critically evaluates U.S. Navy policy and guidance for conducting HSI and recommends proposed solutions to fill gaps in the policy. This thesis first establishes a baseline of HSI requirements among all Navy acquisition programs as outlined in the Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) This baseline is used to establish a way in which HSI programs and policy are evaluated. Additionally, this thesis identifies gaps in all documents that need to be addressed in order to have coherent HSI policy and guidance. These gaps, found through document review and structured interviews, are later used to recommend revisions to DoD policy and to establish a joint framework for conducting HSI throughout the entire Life Cycle of a program. Based on the results of the analysis, this thesis recommends revisions to HSI policy that seek to reduce Life Cycle cost, improve total system performance, and enhance quality of life for the end users, namely the Sailors and Marines who are defending this country on a daily basis and who will ultimately reap the benefits of this work. Those who make decisions throughout the DoD systems will be better informed, will understand how to mitigate Life Cycle costs, and will begin to recognize the human as a critical factor in any system throughout the entire Life Cycle process. The benefits may be difficult to measure at first, but over time there will be a greater understanding of HSI, which will lead to a better understanding of the trade-offs that occur whenever a system is developed. The information presented in this thesis was gathered from a literature review of other texts, periodicals, directives, articles, and regulations pertaining to HSI in the DoD acquisition process. F. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS This thesis assumes that the reader understands the basic principles and current policies governing DoD systems acquisition and program management, as well as DoD and Navy organizations involved therein. Further, it assumes that the reader has a limited knowledge of HSI and will therefore explain HSI concepts and procedures in detail. This thesis focuses on the implementation of HSI through a materiel solutions approach. It is important to understand that HSI is also critical to the process of implementing a 7

29 nonmateriel approach and solution through the use of DOTMLPF; however, nonmateriel approaches are not within the scope of this thesis. G. ORGANIZATION The remainder of the thesis is organized as follows: Chapter II provides the approach used to determine the effectiveness of current policy and how gaps are identified. Chapter III describes a model created to serve as the ideal case, i.e., a way in which DoD HSI policy could be comprehensive and complete. This model serves as the goal for future DoD HSI policy and guidance, from which analysis and recommendations are taken. Chapter IV identifies and describes the gaps found between current policy and our ideal model for this level of documentation. Chapter V proposes recommendations based on the gap analysis to improve the HSI policy within the U.S. Navy. Chapter VI summarizes the conclusions derived from the document analysis as well as the new framework recommendations. 8

30 II. APPROACH A. DESIGN In order to conduct a gap analysis of the current documentation pertaining to HSI within the U.S. Navy, we first propose an ideal conceptual model, which is explained in detail in Chapter III. This model is used to measure the effectiveness of the current HSI policy and to identify the gaps within the policy. This approach does not involve studying individuals, but instead relies on analytical thought and critiques of current DoD policy and guidance. The documents chosen for analysis were: DoDD (2003) DoDI (2008) CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION (CJCSI) F (2007) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS INSTRUCTION (OPNAVINST) (2008) SECRETARY OF THE NAVY INSTRUCTION (SECNAVINST) D (2008) VIRTUAL SYSCOM (VS) HSI GUIDE VOLUME I (2005) VS HSI GUIDE VOLUME II (2005) NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND HUMAN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (NAVSEA HSE) CODE OF BEST PRACTICES (2008) B. DESCRIPTION OF IDEAL MODEL Microsoft Visio was used to construct a visual representation of the ideal model. A system engineering/jcids approach was used to create a functional needs analysis to break down each component from the highest to the lowest possible level. Each separate item in the model was deemed important to HSI, based on the IDAT&L Life Cycle Management Framework. In order to be less biased, current policy and guidance was not used when creating this model, which serves as an ideal model, without reference to current policy. 9

31 C. HYPOTHESIS There are significant gaps in documentation of HSI policy and guidance at all levels throughout the Department of the Navy (DoN). D. PROCEDURE Each reference (policies, guidance, etc.) used in this thesis was assigned a priority level, based on the hierarchical structure of the U.S. Navy. This priority level has associated elements within the model that should be incorporated in the documentation at that level. In order to identify the gaps, each document was read closely and analyzed as it currently stands, looking for the associated elements that should be contained in it according to the ideal model. The elements not contained within the document were identified as gaps. After all documents were analyzed individually, three tracks were created pertaining to the three major U.S. Navy Systems Commands (SYSCOMs): Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR). Each of these tracks began at the highest level, the DoD, and ended at the specified SYSCOM. This allowed us to not only identify gaps within individual documents, but also to identify gaps as a whole within the Navy s acquisition structure. Recommendations were made for filling each gap within the parameters of the current references as well as within each SYSCOM track. 10

32 III. IDEAL MODEL A. BACKGROUND ON THE IDEAL MODEL This chapter explains the methodology used in creating our ideal model for HSI policy throughout the U.S. Navy. It enables the reader to follow the systematic approach taken to analyze HSI policy and guidance that exists in the DoN. This ideal model was created based on the existing Integrated Architecture (IA) and existing policy and guidance, and drew on our knowledge and understanding of the HSI process. The existing IA was created by numerous individuals from the U.S. Navy s HSI Virtual Systems Command (VSYSCOM). We have amended portions of the IA to implement the policy that plays an important role in HSI throughout the Navy. In conjunction with the IA, members of the U.S. Navy Virtual SYSCOM use a program called the Human Analysis and Requirements Planning System (HARPS), which is a tool that allows the identification of automation through development of the HSI IA. The IA is embedded in HARPS and, by using the IA as the basis for the ideal model, by default HARPS is incorporated in the model. Policy is the basis for all tasks in the Navy. It mandates the tasks that should be done, without explicitly stating how they are to be done. Policy creates a common baseline to guide the SYSCOM through complex undertakings. To effectively mandate a specific task, it should be fully specified throughout all levels of authority. In the absence of appropriate policy, breakdowns may occur regarding specific requirements to accomplish the necessary goal. These breakdowns can have significant effects, especially if policy at the highest levels is lacking or unclear. Due to this potential shortcoming, policy is a large part of this ideal model, and results in our model differing substantially from the IA. Our focus on policy allows us to analyze gaps in the IDAT&L Life Cycle Management Framework as well as the policies pertaining to HSI. The IA was developed to provide the SYSCOMs with guidance in the application of HSI, and is complex and detailed in nature. Our ideal model is based on the current IA, but is specifically designed to analyze the full range of policy covered by the DoD. We 11

33 do not suggest that the ideal model optimizes HSI. Rather, it provides a comprehensive coverage that ensures that HSI is being fully implemented at all levels. B. PURPOSE The objective of creating this ideal model is to provide an overview of HSI policy that allows HSI practitioners the ability to recognize shortcomings in current policies and guidance. The end goal of HSI is to integrate the human into all aspects of the system design and acquisition process. It focuses on human performance and trade-offs, given the specifications of each individual system. These short-comings are referred to as gaps, and their identification allows policy makers to see where changes need to be made in the existing policy to ensure HSI is being performed efficiently and that the appropriate people are involved in its delivery. C. STRUCTURE OF MODEL This section describes the ideal model in a systematic manner. The ideal model, and a brief explanation of each item, is seen in Figure 1. In order to create a mental picture for the reader, we have condensed the model onto one page. In the Appendix, the complete model is laid out on multiple pages to allow the reader the ability to read the text of the model. 12

34 Figure 1. The Ideal Model 13

35 1. Do HSI The process of conducting Human Systems Integration is intended to integrate human-related issues into the development of the product by identifying specific human-related and mission-related performance and system design requirements, communicating those requirements throughout the design process, and ensuring those requirements are met (Virtual SYSCOM (VS), Vol. 2, 2005, p. 12). 1.1 Establish Policy A planned course of action that sets forth guiding principles and procedures for ensuring HSI is properly embedded throughout the entire acquisition strategy, to produce the most advantageous products to the user, at the lowest possible cost Establish HSI Reporting Authority A structure created to ensure an open line of communication throughout all organizations in HSI and the Acquisition Framework, from top to bottom, to effectively track and report all HSI-relevant areas and provide oversight for successful program acquisition Operational Reporting Authority The Operational Reporting Authority is tasked with the employment of the forces provided by the administrative chain of command, in order to carry out missions in support of the National Defense (Naval Officers Guide, 1998, p. 185). Since an Operational Reporting Authority already exists in the Navy, HSI practitioners shall be embedded at all levels throughout the reporting authority to ensure open lines of communication and provide oversight in a successful program acquisition Identify Roles/Key Players in Operational Reporting Authority Job title and description for key players serve as part of the operational reporting authority. In addition to meeting the requirements for the specific job description, these key personnel must also be HSI practioners with documented education and experience. 14

36 Identify HSI Key Organizations Throughout the Life Cycle Organizations throughout the DoD and DoN are responsible for implementing and overseeing the HSI process at various stages throughout the IDAT&L Life Cycle. These HSI organizations exist within larger organizations that are stakeholders in the acquisition process o DoD Level Refers to DoD and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) offices. o Service Level Refers to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) and the Office of the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) as well as VSYSCOM. o Command Level Refers to the System Commands (NAVSEA, NAVAIR, and SPAWAR) Administrative Reporting Authority The administrative chain of command is tasked with manning, training, and equipping forces. Since an Administrative Reporting Authority already exists in the Navy, HSI practitioners shall be imbedded at all levels throughout the reporting authority to ensure open lines of communication and provide oversight in a successful program acquisition Identify Roles/Key Players in the Administrative Reporting Authority Identifies the job title and description for key players that serve as part of the Administrative Reporting Authority. In addition to meeting the requirements for the specific job description, these key personnel must also be HSI practioners, with documented education and experience. 15

37 Identify HSI Key Organizations Throughout the Life Cycle Organizations throughout the DoD and DoN that are responsible for implementing and overseeing the HSI process at various stages throughout the IDAT&L Life Cycle. These HSI organizations exist within larger organizations that are stakeholders in the acquisition process o DoD Level Refers to DoD and CJCS offices. o Service Level Refers to OPNAV and SECNAV as well as VSYSCOM. o Command Level Refers to the System Commands (NAVSEA, NAVAIR, and SPAWAR) Define HSI and Domains HSI acknowledges that the human is a critical component of any complex system. It is an interdisciplinary approach that makes explicit the underlining tradeoffs across the HSI domains, facilitating optimization of total system performance (Miller & Shattuck, 2006, p. 4). The domains of HSI are: Manpower, Personnel, Training, Human Factors Engineering, Survivability, Habitability, Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Apply Defined HSI Domains Incorporate all HSI domains listed above to effectively optimize total system performance. Application of all domains will allow for complete trade-off analysis Ensure Integration of Domains Identify desirable and practical alternatives among requirements, technical objectives, design, program schedule, functional and performance requirements and Life Cycle costs to optimize human performance (VS, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 14). 16

38 1.2 Participate in IDAT&L Life Cycle Management Framework Actively engage in all prescribed portions of the framework, from beginning to end, to ensure HSI is integrated throughout the entire framework Identify HSI Key Players Throughout the Life Cycles Phases Identify personnel throughout the DoD and DoN that are responsible for implementing and guiding the HSI process at various stages throughout the IDAT&L Life Cycle. These HSI personnel are members of a stakeholder command in the acquisition process Transition Criteria from JCIDS to the Materiel Solutions Analysis Phase Entry point to begin translating the HSI requirements established in JCIDS into materiel solutions phase by balancing technology opportunities, schedule constraints, funding availability, performance parameters, and operational requirements (VS, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 16) Subset of Functional Area Analysis Identifies the mission area or mission problem to be assessed, the concepts to be examined, the timeframe in which the problem is being assessed, and the scope of the assessment, and describes the relevant objectives and concept of operations (CONOPs) or concepts and the relevant effects to be generated (Defense Acquisition University (DAU), 2005, p. B-66 ) Functional Needs Analysis Assesses the ability of the current and programmed war fighting systems to deliver the capabilities of the Functional Area Analysis identified under the full range of operating conditions and to the designated measures of effectiveness. The FNA produces a list of capability gaps that requires solutions and indicates the time frame in which those solutions are needed. It may also identify redundancies in capabilities that reflect inefficiencies (DAU, 2005, p. B-67) 17

39 Functional Solutions Analysis Operationally assess all potential doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel and facilities (DOTMLPF), approaches to solving (or mitigating) the capability gaps (needs) identified in the Functional Needs Analysis (FNA), highlighting human systems impacts (VS, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 14). HSI Action Plan Document plans to implement HSI within the acquisition process, emphasizing customer involvement, definition of processes for implementing, integration of all HSI domains, acquisition activities, work plans, and resources (VS, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 18). This will not be a stand-alone document; it will be integrated with the systems engineering plan(s). Acknowledgement of Materiel Solution Identify the HSI domain impacts of the proposed materiel solutions (VS, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 15). Initial Capabilities Document Generate the HSI inputs for the ICD and review the overall HSI inclusion and integration (VS, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 16) Materiel Solutions Analysis Phase (MSA) The purpose of this phase is to assess potential materiel solutions and to satisfy the phase-specific entrance criteria for the next program milestone designated by the MDA (DoD, 2008, p. 14) Subset of Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Plan Perform HSI assessment of advantages and disadvantages of alternatives being considered to satisfy capabilities, including a sensitivity of each alternative to possible changes in key assumptions or variables. These assessments should be considered in selection of the preferred materiel solution (VS, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 19). 18

40 Technology Development Strategy Assure Request for Proposal (RFP) includes HSI domain and integration requirements within the Statement of Work (SOW), Specification and Contract Data Requirements. Review and evaluate contractor response to RFP for HSI considerations to approach, cost estimate, and resources (VS, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 23). Test and Evaluation Strategy This is a document that describes risk reduction efforts across the range of activities that will ultimately produce a valid evaluation of operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability before full-rate production and deployment (DAU, 2004, p. 477). Materiel Development Decision This allows a program to enter into the Acquisition Framework/system. It is a mandatory decision point that is developed from the initial capabilities document (ICD), as well as all preliminary concepts, needs, and capabilities, and allows optimal trade-offs to be performed. System Engineering Plan This is a program s overall technical approach including the systems engineering process; resources; and key technical tasks, activities, and events along with their metrics and success criteria. Integration and linkage with other program management control efforts is fundamental to successful application. This plan must address the who, what, when, where, why and how of the applied system (DAU, 2004, p. 166). HSI Action Plan Document plans to implement HSI within the acquisition process emphasizing customer involvement, definition of processes for implementing, integration of all HSI domains, acquisition activities, work plans, and resources. Additionally, this includes the aggregation of all inputs available at this stage of the program to ensure that all HSI needs and constraints of the concept definition are completely captured and managed as an integrated whole, and that all of the HSI needs and constraints can be met by each of the concept alternatives under consideration 19

41 (VS, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 18). This will not be a stand-alone document; it will be integrated with the systems engineering plan(s). Support and Maintenance Concepts [Support and] maintenance considerations, constraints, and plans for operational support of the system/equipment under development (DAU, 2005, p. B-97) Cost and Manpower Estimates The estimate of dollars and personnel required to operate, maintain, support, and provide system-related training, in advance of the approval of the development, or production and deployment of the system. These estimates should be consistent with manpower levels assumed in the affordability assessment and cost requirements (DAU, 2004, p. 52). Alternative Concepts Identify desirable and practical alternatives among requirements, technical objectives, design, program schedule, functional and performance requirements and Life Cycle cost to optimize human performance (VS, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 14). User Input/Feedback The user needs to provide their needs and constraints to the manufacturer in order to keep the program aligned with the initial demand of the user. Initial Capabilities Document Generate the HSI inputs for the ICD and review the overall HSI inclusion and integration (VS, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 16). Preliminary System Specification States the [initial] system level functional and performance requirements, interfaces, adaptation requirements, security and privacy requirements, computer resource requirements, design constraints (including software architecture, data standards, programming language), software support and precedence requirements, and developmental test requirements for a given system (DAU, 2005, p. B-161) Initial Training Systems Plan Develop a training/instructional system that should be employed by transformational training concepts, strategies, and tools such as computer based 20

42 and interactive courseware, simulators, and embedded training consistent with strategy, goals and objectives of the proposed system (DAU, 2004, p. 253). Draft Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) [Draft] attributes or characteristics of a system that are considered critical or essential to the development of an effective military capability and those attributes that make a significant contribution to the key characteristics as defined in the Joint Operations Concept [especially in the HSI domains] (DAU, 2005, p. B-91) Name Materiel Solution Manager Materiel Solution Manager is responsible for managing the HSI related program requirements from concept to disposal, bringing together all stake holders and involving industry (except during competition phases) under their leadership and must be able to balance trade-offs between performance, cost and time within boundaries set by the approving authority (VS, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 17). System Concept A formal document that describes the intended purpose, employment, deployment, and support of a system (DAU, 2005, p. B-161) Transition Criteria from Material Solutions Analysis (MSA) to Technology Development (TD) (Milestone A) Transition between phases is delineated by requirements that must be met before entrance to the next phase Subset of Draft Capability Development Document (CDD) A [draft] document that captures the information necessary to develop a proposed program [throughout the Life Cycle]. The CDD outlines an affordable increment of militarily useful, logistically supportable, and technically mature capability (CJCSI G, 2009, GL-5). Milestone Exit Criteria The point at which a recommendation is made and approval sought regarding starting or continuing an acquisition program, i.e., proceeding to the next phase 21